American held hostage by al Qaeda appeals to Obama... (2 Viewers)

[Fennis]

Turns out Bowe's dad is a Presbyterian and not a Muslim.

Cool. Maybe we can stop talking about him now since he has absolutely nothing to do with this.

He sure had a lot to do with it when he was speaking Muslim in the White House.

Perhaps he should have spoken Presbyterian instead of Muslim to avoid confusion.

Three churches - Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian - worked together to sponsor a community- wide revival. After the revival had concluded, the three pastors were discussing the results with one another.

The Methodist minister said, "The revival worked out great for us! We gained 4 new families."

The Baptist preacher said, "We did better than that! We gained 6 new families."

The Presbyterian pastor said, "Well, we did even better than that! We got rid of our 10 biggest troublemakers!"

 

[jonessed]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Its the very first line.

For purposes of their treatment while in prison. It goes on later to specifically point out that they are not considered POWs. The administration was clearly picking and choosing how to apply the Geneva convention. Since no one considered the Taliban a legitimate government they have a lot of flexibility there.

 

[jonessed]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Yeah, that references treatment in prison and it's mixed on their status. The Obama administration considers them enemy combatants and that is consistent with the article (that they are not POWs).

You're meaning to use "unlawful combatants." "Enemy combatants" includes lawful and unlawful combatants.

Yes. Thank you for the clarification .

 

[humpback]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

No. You lose.

Why bother saying no one died trying to save him, why not say it doesn't matter how many did, even if that one was a POS traitor?

I never said no one died trying to save him. You lose.

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Afghanistan signed the Geneva Convention of 1949. U.S. government lawyers determined the convention applies to Taliban captured since the war on terrorism began.

• ARTICLE 118 Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
  
  

You have to actually know what the Geneva Convention says, of course, but yes. It does say they have to be released.

We are not bound to follow the Geneva convention. We made a statement that they would be treated in accordance with it but nothing binds us to it or our previous statements. We have a report that says some of these guys should never be released. EVER. And I don't think we're going to defy that. The only way we'll know is in a couple of years. Again, if that were the case why isn't the administration using it to mitigate the criticism they're receiving on this issue?

 

[tommyboy]

how much does a nuke cost?

 

[Henry Ford]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Its the very first line.

For purposes of their treatment while in prison. It goes on later to specifically point out that they are not considered POWs. The administration was clearly picking and choosing how to apply the Geneva convention. Since no one considered the Taliban a legitimate government they have a lot of flexibility there.

The fact that the government a soldier swears allegiance to isn't recognized by the other party doesn't mean they aren't prisoners of war. But yes - the Bush administration was clearly picking and choosing how to apply the Geneva convention when they captured prisoners.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

No. You lose.

Why bother saying no one died trying to save him, why not say it doesn't matter how many did, even if that one was a POS traitor?

I never said no one died trying to save him. You lose.

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Afghanistan signed the Geneva Convention of 1949. U.S. government lawyers determined the convention applies to Taliban captured since the war on terrorism began.

• ARTICLE 118 Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
  
  

You have to actually know what the Geneva Convention says, of course, but yes. It does say they have to be released.

We are not bound to follow the Geneva convention.

Wut?

 

[Fennis]

how much does a nuke cost?

how much you got?

 

[StrikeS2k]

We are not bound to follow the Geneva convention.

Wut?

Wow, thanks for truncating my statement and not looking at the context of it. Note to self - add TA to the hack poster bin.

 

[jonessed]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Its the very first line.

For purposes of their treatment while in prison. It goes on later to specifically point out that they are not considered POWs. The administration was clearly picking and choosing how to apply the Geneva convention. Since no one considered the Taliban a legitimate government they have a lot of flexibility there.

The fact that the government a soldier swears allegiance to isn't recognized by the other party doesn't mean they aren't prisoners of war. But yes - the Bush administration was clearly picking and choosing how to apply the Geneva convention when they captured prisoners.

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

 

[pantagrapher]

Did him do a jihad?

 

[humpback]

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

You just said it doesn't make a difference if he was a deserter (others have said the same thing), and now you're saying of course it would be worse. Which is it?

I've clearly stated that we don't know exactly what happened here and that this is a hypothetical. You obviously aren't reading very closely.

 

[Henry Ford]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

You just said it doesn't make a difference if he was a deserter (others have said the same thing), and now you're saying of course it would be worse. Which is it?

I've clearly stated that we don't know exactly what happened here and that this is a hypothetical. You obviously aren't reading very closely.

Maybe you arent reading very closely. I said it would be "worse" in the abstract if he were a deserter and soldiers died trying to rescue him, but that makes no difference to me in the analysis of this deal.

 

[jonessed]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

Because the government doesn't consider them POWs. They have always been contained in a quasi-state of unlawful combatant with humanitarian rights that may or may not conform totally to the Geneva convention.

Henry believes they are POWs, which is fine, there is certainly a case to be made there. Obama may even make that case at some point, but up to now he has been careful not to.

The idea that these guys were always going to be released though is flat out wrong. It was always under our discretion. The Taliban was not considered a legitimate government by the UN so there is nothing holding us to them being treated as POWs and released.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

You just said it doesn't make a difference if he was a deserter (others have said the same thing), and now you're saying of course it would be worse. Which is it?

I've clearly stated that we don't know exactly what happened here and that this is a hypothetical. You obviously aren't reading very closely.

Maybe you arent reading very closely. I said it would be "worse" in the abstract if he were a deserter and soldiers died trying to rescue him, but that makes no difference to me in the analysis of this deal.

In the abstract it's a sliding scale:

Served with honor and distinction (ie the Susan Rice view)

Served, but did nothing with honor or distinction

Served, went AWOL

Served, deserted (with / without escape attempt(s))

Served, defected (with / without escape attempt(s))

Served, defected, went whole hog Taliban and aided the enemy with information, planning and propaganda, and actually harmed Americans

He still hasn't been allowed to talk to his parents - which is pretty remarkable.

Obviously we have to wait for the full report. We're all speculating here at this point. However right now it doesn't sound like he will be getting an honorable discharge. On the other hand he signed up so we know he wanted to help his country at some point.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

We tried the ones we could. We presumably didnt try these guys because we couldnt for one reason or another (eg lack of evidence, etc.). Here is a little more on the detainees backgrounds.

 

[Henry Ford]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

We were going to hold trials in a military court. How could we do that if they weren't military? It's been a complete cluster#### from the beginning.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

You just said it doesn't make a difference if he was a deserter (others have said the same thing), and now you're saying of course it would be worse. Which is it?

I've clearly stated that we don't know exactly what happened here and that this is a hypothetical. You obviously aren't reading very closely.

Maybe you arent reading very closely. I said it would be "worse" in the abstract if he were a deserter and soldiers died trying to rescue him, but that makes no difference to me in the analysis of this deal.

In the abstract it's a sliding scale:

Served with honor and distinction (ie the Susan Rice view)

Served, but did nothing with honor or distinction

Served, went AWOL

Served, deserted (with / without escape attempt(s))

Served, defected (with / without escape attempt(s))

Served, defected, went whole hog Taliban and aided the enemy with information, planning and propaganda, and actually harmed Americans

He still hasn't been allowed to talk to his parents - which is pretty remarkable.

Obviously we have to wait for the full report. We're all speculating here at this point. However right now it doesn't sound like he will be getting an honorable discharge. On the other hand he signed up so we know he wanted to help his country at some point.

Right, and like I have said repeatedly, I have no problem if the facts show he should be prosecuted and locked up forever. But until then, he is a US soldier and I am glad we did the deal to get him back.

 

[Henry Ford]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

Because the government doesn't consider them POWs. They have always been contained in a quasi-state of unlawful combatant with humanitarian rights that may or may not conform totally to the Geneva convention.

Henry believes they are POWs, which is fine, there is certainly a case to be made there. Obama may even make that case at some point, but up to now he has been careful not to.

The idea that these guys were always going to be released though is flat out wrong. It was always under our discretion. The Taliban was not considered a legitimate government by the UN so there is nothing holding us to them being treated as POWs and released.

The fact that the government isn't recognized as legitimate is not determinative of POW status. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

 

[avoiding injuries]

POWs or not, at least one of them is vowing to continue to fight Americans.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/06/taliban-commander-released-from-gitmo-has-already-vowed-to-continue-fighting-americans/

 

[timschochet]

Everything I've read agrees with Henry Ford on this. And yes Strike it's more than one source.

Beyond even the legal argument, there is a strong practical one as well. We're leaving Afghanistan. The government that we're leaving behind is weak and corrupt. If we want to avoid a repeat of Vietnam in 1975, we need to reach an accommodation with the Taliban. That's just the reality.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I've come around to the administration on this one a bit. If the people we released were really Taliban (as opposed to AQ -- not the same thing of course), then we were presumably going to be releasing them soon anyway. Getting Bergdahl back so he can be court martialed appropriately basically amounts to getting something for nothing.

Obviously Obama laid an egg by not informing Congress. He also disgraced himself and reinforced lots of impressions that right-wingers already have about him by welcoming Bergdahl back as some sort of hero. But the trade itself makes more sense than I thought originally.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

Putting them on trial was always a bad idea. I've always argued that we should treat these people sort of like how we treat POWs even if they technically aren't: just hold them until the war is over. In the case of the Taliban, that means the war in Afghanistan. In the case of Al Qaeda, it means until AQ officially surrenders (i.e. they die of old age in Gitmo).

 

[jonessed]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

Because the government doesn't consider them POWs. They have always been contained in a quasi-state of unlawful combatant with humanitarian rights that may or may not conform totally to the Geneva convention.Henry believes they are POWs, which is fine, there is certainly a case to be made there. Obama may even make that case at some point, but up to now he has been careful not to.

The idea that these guys were always going to be released though is flat out wrong. It was always under our discretion. The Taliban was not considered a legitimate government by the UN so there is nothing holding us to them being treated as POWs and released.

The fact that the government isn't recognized as legitimate is not determinative of POW status. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

Our government doesn't recognize them as POWs.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

We were going to hold trials in a military court. How could we do that if they weren't military? It's been a complete cluster#### from the beginning.

The reason why it's been a cluster#### is because the laws of war were written with nation-states in mind. Everybody should have just been honest back in 2001 and realize that when it comes to serious military action involving non-state actors, we were in uncharted waters and essentially figuring things out as we went along.

 

[Henry Ford]

Our government doesn't recognize them as POWs.

I get that. That's a problem.

 

[Henry Ford]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

We were going to hold trials in a military court. How could we do that if they weren't military? It's been a complete cluster#### from the beginning.

The reason why it's been a cluster#### is because the laws of war were written with nation-states in mind. Everybody should have just been honest back in 2001 and realize that when it comes to serious military action involving non-state actors, we were in uncharted waters and essentially figuring things out as we went along.

The Taliban isn't a non-state actor. It's a fundamentalist government in Afghanistan that's been overthrown.

 

[timschochet]

I've come around to the administration on this one a bit. If the people we released were really Taliban (as opposed to AQ -- not the same thing of course), then we were presumably going to be releasing them soon anyway. Getting Bergdahl back so he can be court martialed appropriately basically amounts to getting something for nothing.

Obviously Obama laid an egg by not informing Congress. He also disgraced himself and reinforced lots of impressions that right-wingers already have about him by welcoming Bergdahl back as some sort of hero. But the trade itself makes more sense than I thought originally.

Agree with almost all of this. Except that I think Obama's welcoming Bergdahl as a hero came as a result more of ignorance of the desertion rather than deliberation- though in some ways that's even more embarrassing. Although I have to add that if the stories are true about Bergdahl attempting to escape the Taliban on numerous occasions, and actually succeeding only to be recaptured, he may be more heroic than we think.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Everything I've read agrees with Henry Ford on this. And yes Strike it's more than one source.

Beyond even the legal argument, there is a strong practical one as well. We're leaving Afghanistan. The government that we're leaving behind is weak and corrupt. If we want to avoid a repeat of Vietnam in 1975, we need to reach an accommodation with the Taliban. That's just the reality.

Then post something credible Tim. Heck, Henry Ford's argument is based upon a statement that we were going to treat these guys by the Geneva convention's standards. He has acknowledged that we are picking and choosing what part of the Geneva convention to apply to them, and that they aren't even considered POW's by our government. Given all of that, I don't know how anyone can say with certainty that we were going to be releasing these guys.

No one has answered my question as to why the Obama administration isn't using the fact that we're going to be releasing these guys anyways as a way to justify the swap.

And we have a report by Obama's state dept. that says some of these guys should NEVER be released. Can't believe you'd think we're going to release people we've determined should never see the light of day for nothing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

We were going to hold trials in a military court. How could we do that if they weren't military? It's been a complete cluster#### from the beginning.

The reason why it's been a cluster#### is because the laws of war were written with nation-states in mind. Everybody should have just been honest back in 2001 and realize that when it comes to serious military action involving non-state actors, we were in uncharted waters and essentially figuring things out as we went along.

The Taliban isn't a non-state actor. It's a fundamentalist government in Afghanistan that's been overthrown.

Right. I was thinking of AQ when I was typing that but I should have been more clear.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I've come around to the administration on this one a bit. If the people we released were really Taliban (as opposed to AQ -- not the same thing of course), then we were presumably going to be releasing them soon anyway. Getting Bergdahl back so he can be court martialed appropriately basically amounts to getting something for nothing.

Obviously Obama laid an egg by not informing Congress. He also disgraced himself and reinforced lots of impressions that right-wingers already have about him by welcoming Bergdahl back as some sort of hero. But the trade itself makes more sense than I thought originally.

Agree with almost all of this. Except that I think Obama's welcoming Bergdahl as a hero came as a result more of ignorance of the desertion rather than deliberation- though in some ways that's even more embarrassing.Although I have to add that if the stories are true about Bergdahl attempting to escape the Taliban on numerous occasions, and actually succeeding only to be recaptured, he may be more heroic than we think.

You put that part in there just to make sure I stay pissed at you all the time, right?

 

[timschochet]

Everything I've read agrees with Henry Ford on this. And yes Strike it's more than one source.

Beyond even the legal argument, there is a strong practical one as well. We're leaving Afghanistan. The government that we're leaving behind is weak and corrupt. If we want to avoid a repeat of Vietnam in 1975, we need to reach an accommodation with the Taliban. That's just the reality.

Then post something credible Tim. Heck, Henry Ford's argument is based upon a statement that we were going to treat these guys by the Geneva convention's standards. He has acknowledged that we are picking and choosing what part of the Geneva convention to apply to them, and that they aren't even considered POW's by our government. Given all of that, I don't know how anyone can say with certainty that we were going to be releasing these guys.

No one has answered my question as to why the Obama administration isn't using the fact that we're going to be releasing these guys anyways as a way to justify the swap.

And we have a report by Obama's state dept. that says some of these guys should NEVER be released. Can't believe you'd think we're going to release people we've determined should never see the light of day for nothing.

I already answered your question already. It would be really bad politics, and eques worse foreign policy, for the White House to admit that all these guys are going to have to be released. We are trying to leave Afghanistan with some sort of stability left for the government there. Yes we are going to have to release them, no we shouldn't acknowledge it very loudly. As far as more sources go, I'm on my iPhone all day today and nowhere near a laptop. Besides I've been to this rodeo before with you. I already know there won't be any source you regard as credible.

 

[timschochet]

I've come around to the administration on this one a bit. If the people we released were really Taliban (as opposed to AQ -- not the same thing of course), then we were presumably going to be releasing them soon anyway. Getting Bergdahl back so he can be court martialed appropriately basically amounts to getting something for nothing.

Obviously Obama laid an egg by not informing Congress. He also disgraced himself and reinforced lots of impressions that right-wingers already have about him by welcoming Bergdahl back as some sort of hero. But the trade itself makes more sense than I thought originally.

Agree with almost all of this. Except that I think Obama's welcoming Bergdahl as a hero came as a result more of ignorance of the desertion rather than deliberation- though in some ways that's even more embarrassing.Although I have to add that if the stories are true about Bergdahl attempting to escape the Taliban on numerous occasions, and actually succeeding only to be recaptured, he may be more heroic than we think.

You put that part in there just to make sure I stay pissed at you all the time, right?

I didn't know you were pissed at me. But seriously, I'm starting to think of Bergdahl as Steve McQueen in Papillon.

 

[Henry Ford]

The Bush administration didn't consider them POWs, the UN didn't, and the Obama administration doesn't. I don't see how the idea that we are obligated to release them as POWs according to the Geneva convention carries much weight. We could always decide to, but clearly everyone has been careful not to back themselves into that corner.

The Obama administration has publicly stated that they're done with the "enemy combatant" label. Which leaves limited options on that front.

Either way, I'm pretty solidly in this camp: http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_4.pdf

They're POWs in my opinion, certainly.

Weren't we going to put all these guys on trial? How could we do that if they were POW's?

We were going to hold trials in a military court. How could we do that if they weren't military? It's been a complete cluster#### from the beginning.

The reason why it's been a cluster#### is because the laws of war were written with nation-states in mind. Everybody should have just been honest back in 2001 and realize that when it comes to serious military action involving non-state actors, we were in uncharted waters and essentially figuring things out as we went along.

The Taliban isn't a non-state actor. It's a fundamentalist government in Afghanistan that's been overthrown.

Right. I was thinking of AQ when I was typing that but I should have been more clear.

The article up for discussion is about the legal status of the Taliban. Boom!

 

[humpback]

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

You just said it doesn't make a difference if he was a deserter (others have said the same thing), and now you're saying of course it would be worse. Which is it?

I've clearly stated that we don't know exactly what happened here and that this is a hypothetical. You obviously aren't reading very closely.

Maybe you arent reading very closely. I said it would be "worse" in the abstract if he were a deserter and soldiers died trying to rescue him, but that makes no difference to me in the analysis of this deal.

The question you originally answered as "it doesn't make a difference to me" was clearly in the abstract as well, you even said it was "a ridiculous question". This really shouldn't be difficult.

 

[Todd Andrews]

The facts of this story really are pretty crazy.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

You just said it doesn't make a difference if he was a deserter (others have said the same thing), and now you're saying of course it would be worse. Which is it?

I've clearly stated that we don't know exactly what happened here and that this is a hypothetical. You obviously aren't reading very closely.

Maybe you arent reading very closely. I said it would be "worse" in the abstract if he were a deserter and soldiers died trying to rescue him, but that makes no difference to me in the analysis of this deal.

The question you originally answered as "it doesn't make a difference to me" was clearly in the abstract as well, you even said "it's a ridiculous question". This really shouldn't be difficult.

It isnt difficult. No one has said anything should be done to return Bergdahl although you keep acting as if someone has. I said it doesnt matter to me if someone deserts when it comes to whether we try to get them back. I dont even know what you are trying to argue about. Maybe you should think about what point you are trying to make.

 

[timschochet]

The facts of this story really are pretty crazy.

Wow. The dad actually sounds like a remarkable guy, someone who can have compassion for his sons captors, and for the loss of innocent life. I can only hope that if I ever face circumstances as tragic as this guy faced, I might be as wise and empathetic to others.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Everything I've read agrees with Henry Ford on this. And yes Strike it's more than one source.

Beyond even the legal argument, there is a strong practical one as well. We're leaving Afghanistan. The government that we're leaving behind is weak and corrupt. If we want to avoid a repeat of Vietnam in 1975, we need to reach an accommodation with the Taliban. That's just the reality.

Then post something credible Tim. Heck, Henry Ford's argument is based upon a statement that we were going to treat these guys by the Geneva convention's standards. He has acknowledged that we are picking and choosing what part of the Geneva convention to apply to them, and that they aren't even considered POW's by our government. Given all of that, I don't know how anyone can say with certainty that we were going to be releasing these guys.

No one has answered my question as to why the Obama administration isn't using the fact that we're going to be releasing these guys anyways as a way to justify the swap.

And we have a report by Obama's state dept. that says some of these guys should NEVER be released. Can't believe you'd think we're going to release people we've determined should never see the light of day for nothing.

I already answered your question already. It would be really bad politics, and eques worse foreign policy, for the White House to admit that all these guys are going to have to be released. We are trying to leave Afghanistan with some sort of stability left for the government there. Yes we are going to have to release them, no we shouldn't acknowledge it very loudly.As far as more sources go, I'm on my iPhone all day today and nowhere near a laptop. Besides I've been to this rodeo before with you. I already know there won't be any source you regard as credible.

Why would it be bad politics? If it's common knowledge already take advantage of it. This response makes no sense. Please explain it in further detail.

Regarding a credible source, trust me I find many more sources credible than you do. Post ANY other source. I did a search and couldn't find one. The only one you've posted is an opinion piece. There's been nothing of substance that I've been able to find to support your statement. So you'll understand if I'm skeptical of that claim.

 

[humpback]

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

I think it should be a ridiculous question as well, but it obviously isn't since people have made those statements. The link you provided, when you so eloquently told me I lose, pretty much said the same thing.

I completely disagree with it not mattering if he is a deserter (or worse). I think it would be far worse if US soldiers died because some scumbag turned his back on his own men.

Of course it would be "worse" if US soldiers died because "some scumbag turned his back on his own men." But we dont know exactly what happened here, and until we do I always support getting our soldiers back from the enemy. I am not sure what your point is--are you arguing that we shouldnt have done a deal for him because there remain questions about how he was captured or whether he deserted or not?

By the way, if it turns out he was a traitor and worked with the Taliban, then I think he should be prosecuted and rot in jail forever. But none of that has anything to do with whether we should have done this deal or not knowing what we know now.

You just said it doesn't make a difference if he was a deserter (others have said the same thing), and now you're saying of course it would be worse. Which is it?

I've clearly stated that we don't know exactly what happened here and that this is a hypothetical. You obviously aren't reading very closely.

Maybe you arent reading very closely. I said it would be "worse" in the abstract if he were a deserter and soldiers died trying to rescue him, but that makes no difference to me in the analysis of this deal.

The question you originally answered as "it doesn't make a difference to me" was clearly in the abstract as well, you even said "it's a ridiculous question". This really shouldn't be difficult.

It isnt difficult. No one has said anything should be done to return Bergdahl although you keep acting as if someone has. I said it doesnt matter to me if someone deserts when it comes to whether we try to get them back. I dont even know what you are trying to argue about. Maybe you should think about what point you are trying to make.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

Of course we were going to release them anyway. We've turned them, and now they're going to spy for us. Have you never watched TV?

 

[Henry Ford]

I still hold out hope that there are GPS devices in their colons.

 

[johnnycakes]

I still hold out hope that there are GPS devices in their colons.

I was hoping for something like what the Russians did with Alexander Litvinenko, only more of a time-release type of deal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The facts of this story really are pretty crazy.

Wow. The dad actually sounds like a remarkable guy, someone who can have compassion for his sons captors, and for the loss of innocent life. I can only hope that if I ever face circumstances as tragic as this guy faced, I might be as wise and empathetic to others.

"Our son's safe return will only heighten public awareness of this. That said, our son is being exploited. It's past time for Bowe, and the others, to come home."

I'm a little confused here, still. There is this continuing echo that Obama has had no purpose, no cause, no reason or strategy for the surge or for being in Afghanistan since 2009.

All this "good war" business - why has he thrown 1700 American dead on to the pyre if he had no greater strategy or purpose for their being there?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The facts of this story really are pretty crazy.

Wow. The dad actually sounds like a remarkable guy, someone who can have compassion for his sons captors, and for the loss of innocent life. I can only hope that if I ever face circumstances as tragic as this guy faced, I might be as wise and empathetic to others.

"The man who we believe holds Bowe grew up on the lap of his mother learning the Koran. He is a powerful man," Bergdahl said. "We pray for him. He recently lost a son to a CIA missile drone strike.

Just a little reminder about something, Bob:

Al Qaeda attacked our cities, killed 3,000 people, has been at war with the USA, in addition to attacking and killing at US civilian, diplomatic and military sites since 1996.

When we, Bob and Bowe Bergdahl's people, us, went to the Taliban (you know the guys that do executions by the stadium, who enslave women, have summary executions for showing kindness to Christians and Jews, that kind of thing) and demanded these killers, these genocidal freaks, be turned over, they not only declined, they took arms to protect them, against us.

They continue to.

The fact that he didn't kill Bowe right then is incredible.

Yeah, the fact that he is the only US soldier they did not kill on the spot upon capture is pretty weird, he has a point. That is "in-credible," as in very hard to believe without knowing what they got out of him.

 

[Kal El]

The facts of this story really are pretty crazy.

Wow. The dad actually sounds like a remarkable guy, someone who can have compassion for his sons captors, and for the loss of innocent life. I can only hope that if I ever face circumstances as tragic as this guy faced, I might be as wise and empathetic to others.

Personally, I can kind of see his point. After all, if we show mercy even if our enemies show none, that makes us better for it, in a way. I know many of us here will disagree, and I don't totally agree with everything he said, but in a small way, this guy is shpwing us what it means to be truly forgiving. Plus, he has his son back, and circumstances aside, no parent should be forbidden to celebrate their son's return.